Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 09 October 2017 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003E11342FF; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=tChyrtP4; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=kcJ6vfYi
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vx4W1_BGFTQt; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340971342E5; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v99K8PH6018694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1507579716; x=1507666116; bh=pfM2E0pdxcE7NAegb8eaOaRGSV8meY40Lm6dICoobG0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tChyrtP4pZ2HZSjE20fJFKQsD1/m3iyfTG1gTRl8VIfkpp7XEYlQU9BrvDpgMIZdI DFPYj7FZfmSUtU68HjIKVbXxP78G4TG+3RgJfQgooqN9cK1e/rA+3J4GHgH05br/TP s7ZnNzHWCA+5nUxF/F+TkPZOoNvrfXqMstOJdWbQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1507579716; x=1507666116;; bh=pfM2E0pdxcE7NAegb8eaOaRGSV8meY40Lm6dICoobG0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=kcJ6vfYiZ9vT4hpcbjwgYpYV0G7GjWgSk1BkpEllytx+gf49K/fzMux6iRbQf/2aB 43heZV5gLGmilAMuV64iTi7a6ngCq4cydL1H8JK/tyrqH4karjXvbeiPa/V3UdKLzY XhBz5iZyZALR3q+EJNQ6lF0i1jK7oQafRsW3evIk=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 13:08:02 -0700
To: Uma Chunduri <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A87E81@SJCEML701-CHM.chi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:08:41 -0000

Hi Uma,
At 10:14 AM 09-10-2017, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>[Uma]: I am not sure what do you mean by "Privacy requirements 
>redefined".  Today in

I was commenting on the text from the proposed charter.  There are 
one or more RFCs which discusses about privacy.

>[Uma]: What's  the relevance of the same here.  IDEAS is not seeking 
>to change any type of LOC information used in ID/LOC protocols... 
>this is governed by ID/LOC protocol in use. It could be IPv4 or (mostly) IPv6.
>                IDEAS doesn't alter or won't come into 
> picture  outside of ID/LOC protocol context.

If the IETF were to decide that it will stop doing IPv4 work except 
for maintenance, should the working group be allowed to add in 
support for IPv4?

S. Moonesamy